Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not sure if Bill Clinton signed this into law, but it surely came to be
Posted By: Democrat on 2005-07-01
In Reply to: The man who wants to make a Hotel out of Souter's property was on Fox News. - Democrat
under his watch.
Unlike the "Bush supporters" of this day and time, I can and will admit when a president I admired (Bill Clinton) has done something I disagree with.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
But he just signed a bill filled with earmarks???
x
VIRGINIA TECH. That's why this bill was signed.
If you remember, most of the mass shootings, etc. are done by people who are not quite "there" mentally. Virginia Tech is a good example. That boy was mentally ill and was not allowed to own a firearm, yet he did buy one because the database did not include his name. It could have been avoided had all the state databases been tied to the NCIS.
http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=485
When Bill Clinton was in office, OHHH you better believe Bill and Carter have had..sm
their day of mudslinging matches, at the pleasure of a many conservatives. So, no there's not a double standard here.
Bill Clinton and his ties to India (yes, Bill),...
and China (yes, Bill) sent a lot of our jobs their way. Google it some time. Even I was amazed.
Look, it is simple economics. The big bad corporations everyone hates...first of all, it is not 5 or 6 rich guys and that's it. They employee thousands of people just like us...and when the government puts those huge taxes on them, if they want to stay in business, they are forced to move offshore. Higher taxes are responsible for more jobs going overseas than "greed." The DNC has told its members for years that "corporations" and "the rich" are the cause of all their problems and they have bought that Marxist rhetoric hook, line, and sinker. Corporations are not the cause of ill in this country. They are the backbone of the economy in this country. That is simple economics 101. And I am certainly not rich...and I certainly am not on the upper echelon of a corporation, but I do understand reality and I understand how the economy works. Yes, there is wrongdoing by some upper level folks in corporations. There is wrongdoing in the government. Where there is power, there will be wrongdoing. But for every Enron there are thousands of other good, solid companies that employ thousands of Americans, but the DNC does not share the success stories, because it does not promote their agenda. In order to control people they want them beholden to government and hating free enterprise. They want big government, total power, and control. And following Alinksy's program...you have to instill class warfare. You have to make corporations the enemy. You have to make classes envy the next rung up. Classic Marxist socialism. It is being played out in this country every day.
It is just that some of us have not bought the myth and jumped on the socialism train.
Poster is very correct. Obama did NOT beat Clinton
And NOW, this big fiasco with the global banking system, concidentally just a month before this orchestrated election?
I've always wondered why everything got so hush hush when it was obvious Hillary Clinton had won the nomination but was suddenly pushed to the side and here's this man who has extremely concerning ties with people you would tell your own relative to stay away from.
And the millions of dollars he gets from unknown sources OUTSIDE this country.
I'm just glad McCain hasn't stooped to betraying his country like Obama. Something is very stinky in Denmark!!!
WHATever and thank you, Bill Clinton
with a thriving economy, an honest attempt at protecting our environment, and peace.
Bill Clinton
Any party that could celebrate the presence of Bill Clinton at their convention like he was the second coming has their priorities wrong as far as I am concerned...bizarre!
Here's another one: Bill Clinton....sm
I don't know how valid this story is, as I have read it too, and don't know the details.
I do know, and you probably do too, that Bill Clinton did this, and I'm sure countless others. But we didn't and don't hear about it because they weren't/aren't SP.
Seems kind of hypocritical to condemn Gov. Palin for this practice, when it's been going on for decades in the good ol' boy system, don't you agree?
Bill Clinton
let this Country down with his behavior. That doesn't mean I don't think he did good things for this Country. Certainly, he did not harm the Country like the present administration has. There are many reasons I don't think John McCain should be the next president. I believe that anyone who is going to cast their vote in November should find out the facts about both candidates and make an educated decision, taking everything into consideration. This is an important election. We are facing many serious problems and we need the best person in there to do the best he can.
Bill Clinton, for one, did not come from........... sm
a wealthy background. His father died when Bill was a baby and his mother, in order to be able to support her children and herself, went away to nursing school, leaving Bill and sibs with their grandparents to raise. They ran a grocery store in Hope, AR, and couldn't have been what you would call well off.
LBJ was born in a farmhouse in a poor area near the Pendernales River and grew up rather poor. He worked his way through college and earned a teaching certificate, teaching mainly Mexican children in Cotulla.
Ronald Reagan grew up without wealth or privilege. He dealt with alcoholic parents for most of his growing up years.
These are a few of our modern day presidents who came from poor backgrounds. I'm sure some of the earlier presidents came from less than wealthy circumstances.
Ah, just as Bill Clinton
'did not have sexual intercourse with that woman....Ms. Lewinski" ? Still, it was some kind of sex, wasn't it?
And frankly, if you think sex can be done only the way the 'parts fit' um........ zzzzzzzzzzz
Bill Clinton was able to do it
Everyone knows B.C.'s "backyard" needed serious attention that it wasn't getting. If anyone had a messed up personal life it was him, yet you were okay with him as the Prez. This is very hypocritical.
Do I think Gov. Palin would be a good President. No way! There is a lot she needs to learn and be involved in before attempting something like that again, but it has nothing to do with her personal life. It has everything to do with her political life/career.
You cannot compare the two and say she wouldn't be a good President or VP because of her family life, because you don't hold the democrats up to the same standards. You give them a free pass. As we saw with B.C. - what a disaster/disgrace that administration was.
Hey hey hey...Bill Clinton did not
have sex with THAT woman. LOL! He just got a BJ from her and shoved a cigar up her hooha! Who let's people do that anyway? Of all the things to stick up there.....a cigar? You can buy a dildo for like 10 bucks. I wonder if Monica can sue Bill if she gets vaginal cancer from inserting cigars. LOL!
Bill Clinton is no more responsible for 9-11 than..sm
you or I am. It is Al quaeda who is responsible.
OK, he didn't take Osama bin Laden when he was offered up by the Sudan. Do you actually think taking bin Laden down would have stopped 9-11. So, Osama was the only terrorist out there. 9-11's plan had been in motion and was much bigger than Osama. Case and point, the fact that this admin. is not even focusing the bulk of their attention on Osama, so that's a mute point.
And I wouldn't try to defend the DEFICIT that Bush has brought to the White House because I'd take a projected surplus over a projected never ending deficit anyday.
I could care less about Bill Clinton.
And I never got hung up in all of that either. As a matter of fact, no one I know did. I am sad that America fails to take possibly the most real threat towards our annihilation seriously. Everyone seems caught up in a conspiracy theory, no different than the kajillion conspiracy theories that abounded when Clinton was in office. I am not sure why Clinton has to be brought up at every juncture, but the point is, most are missing the point. I agree that these ladies have some good ideas and I have to say that probably the majority of Americans will agree with many of their points. However, when the true jihad hits America, what will it matter who caused or allowed or perpetuated 9/11? All of that pales next to what will happen if we do not stay the course. I spend my time watching the websites that deal with these issues, not the ones who put forth conspiracy theories. I simply am not interested in that.
Still more than Obama has. As much as Bill Clinton had...
when he was elected President, not VP. If he had enough experience to be Pres with only experience as a governor, so has she. Can't have it both ways.
Bill Clinton is a murderer -- oh I
knew better than respond to you. It just encourages you. NO SOUP FOR YOU!
I did not say Bill Clinton was a murderer...
the poster intimated MURDERER in capital letters talking about Palin talking to that group. I simply said there were unexplained deaths that surround the clintons. And there are. I lived in his old stomping grounds. Why is it that you can insinuate and post innuendo and when someone else does you cry foul...oh, well how silly of me. DOUBLE STANDARD.
Uh oh.......Bill Clinton, not BUSH
xx
Actually Bill Clinton had the chance
To get Osama and he never did. This started long before GW ever got in the white house. You may not like GW - I can't stand him, but I'm not going to blame him for something that started in the Clinton administration.
Right on, Sam! I actually agree with Bill Clinton in
nm
NOBODY from Bill Clinton's administration.
They did enough damage.
So was Bill Clinton..you know what happened there! nm
//
Then the first finger goes to Bill Clinton
If you want to start the pointing that is.
True....still waiting for Bill Clinton to own up...
Teddy Kennedy to own up...Barack Obama to own up...there is a lot of owning up that should be done on both sides. But, as you said...integrity and guts. I think there are plenty of the "less brave" on both sides of the aisle.
here's its all Bill Clinton's fault post
like clockwork.
The problem is Bill Clinton isn't running for VP
and saying that he is going to do away with the good ole' boy network and cronyism. Palin is.
I'm sure Clinton did this too, as countless others have also. But, we are in this election, here and now, not what happened years ago.
So, no, it is not hypocritical for me to ask about this or bring it up as she is the one saying that she is not like that.
Bill Clinton also cheated on his wife....
while he was President. It did not seem to affect his ability to run the country.
He also took the time to stop by Bill Clinton's
fundraiser or some such for his foundation or charity group. I guess he wasn't in that big of a hurry to get back to DC.
Listen to the words of Bill Clinton
These are the words of Joe Biden & Bill Clinton (and some Hillary)
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=WMYty1PgHEg&NR=1
you got Bush mixed up with Bill Clinton...it was....(sm)
all Clinton's cronies who ended up on Wall Street, FM/FM, etc., in charge, who were still there when everything tanked.....Clinton's cronies have profited, not Bush's
Yeah, and Bill Clinton should have been thrown out
nm
So, Bill Clinton, the UN, and the rest of the world were lying about WMD too?
x
And Bill Clinton let 800,000 people die in Rwanda. So what's your point? sm
You bleeding heart liberals make me sick.
Hillary Clinton Calls for Privacy Bill...sm
Now I agree with Senator Clinton on this and I have said all along wire tapping should have checks and balances, goverment 101.
Also, living in an information society there has to be something in place to protect citizens privacy. This past week I read a blog with pictures of unknowing obese or tacky dressed people posted in the blog with comments about them. These people were enjoying a private day at the pool and this blogger was snapping their pictures. Not only was this downright evil and disrespectful but it should be illegal.
---------------
(AP) Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, drawing on her experiences as a young Watergate lawyer who decades later was investigated as first lady, urged creation of a privacy bill of rights Friday to protect people's personal data.
Modern life makes many things easier and many things easier to know, and yet privacy is somehow caught in the crosshairs of these changes, Clinton said in a speech to a left-leaning legal group.
Clinton's speech on protecting consumers from identity theft and citizens from government snooping was the latest in a series of talks billed as major addresses by aides. Previous speeches were on energy and the economy.
A potential presidential candidate in 2008 whose eight years as first lady were marked by numerous investigations, Clinton noted her work on a House committee investigating the Nixon administration's illegal snooping and other abuses.
And she ruefully called herself an expert in the loss of privacy.
Having lost so much of my own privacy in recent years I have a deep appreciation of its value and a firm commitment to protecting it for all the rest of you, she said, prompting laughter from the audience of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy.
Clinton wants to create a privacy czar within the White House to guard against recent problems like the theft of personal data from the Department of Veterans Affairs.
She also wants legislation to let consumers know what information companies are keeping about them and how it is used, and create a tiered system of penalties for companies who are not careful with consumer data.
Clinton also waded into the debate over anti-terror eavesdropping. For months Democrats have hammered at the Bush administration over the National Security Agency's program of domestic wiretapping without warrants from judges. The administration insists it is both legal and necessary.
Clinton said any president should have the latest technology to track terrorists, but within laws that provide for oversight by judges.
The administration's refrain has been, Trust us,' said Clinton. That's unacceptable. Their track record doesn't warrant our trust. ... Unchecked mass surveillance without judicial review may sometimes be legal but it is dangerous. Every president should save those powers for limited critical situations.
MMVI The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Name me one good thing Bill Clinton did as President
I voted for Clinton when he first ran agains Bush Sr. After six months of him as president and what I saw happening to the country I re-registered as republican. Every time that man or his wife had their face on the TV I muted it. I cannot tell you why, but hearing his voice or seeing his face literally made me nausous. (I should have invested in Pepto Bismol stock and would have made a fortune because of all the Pepto I went through). I still believe for 8 years we had no president. Just someone sitting in the office, but we didn't have a real leader.
Now I keep hearing how everyone praises Bill Clinton and what a great president he was (even though he was impeached). So I would like to hear from people and name one thing that was good that he did so I could possibly have a different opinion of him. The really odd thing is everytime his face is in the news I get that sick nauseous feeling again and still have to mute him and look away.
The hair just stands up on my neck and I really feel like I am looking at what evil is (and I'm not religious, but he just gives me a creepy feeling), so please tell me something good about him.
Bill Clinton praises Sen McCain ...see message
His words were "John McCain has the best record of any Republican running for President on the energy issue and on climate change".
And I was surprised to read that in the Huffington Post.
I have heard talk that bothh Clintons plan to vote for McCain this fall as well. As shocking as that may sound it makes sense.
So....Correct me if I'm wrong here
But you seem to be advocate blowing somebody away just because you merely think they are going to do something wrong?
Quite the little anarchist, aren't you?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there
***
Please correct me if I'm wrong but
I thought Hispanics and African-Americans weren't the biggest pals. I mean...you watch these gang shows and prison shows on tv and all they talk about is the rivalry between the Hispanics and African-Americans.
Please correct me if I'm wrong here
but it seems like most everyone dislikes Nancy Pelosi. If we all hate the woman, why is she in the position she is? How did such a horrid woman get to have so much power? Ugh.....she just makes me wanna puke.
Correct me if I'm wrong
I don't mind being wrong, and will admit when I am wrong....
Yes there is a difference between inciting hate and inciting violence. I have never heard MSNBC inciting violence and I also have never heard Fox incite violence. What Fox does is wake up people and let us know what our right are according to the constitution. They have even said over and over and over how wrong it was for Acorn to organize groups to terrorize the executives of AIG and put their families in fear. They are against violence of all sorts and they state that over and over. What MSNBC does is purposely go out of their way to misinform the public. They make fun of and chastise (sp?) anyone who doesn't agree with them and they go on the attack pretty much foaming at the mouth - Actually I saw Matthews drool one time he was so worked up.
I'll tell you about MSNBC. I know cos I watched them for the last 8 years. I couldn't stand the Bush regime, and I found myself drawn to MSNBC because I agreed with most of everything they said. I absolutely loved Keith Olberman (as my mom would say - very easy on the eyes too). I always found him to be witty and agreed with everything he said. Same with Chris Matthews. He did ask some tough questions and when he was rude to the guests I just figured it was okay because since I agreed with Chris and not the guest I though it was acceptable to be rude to them. This is what I found during the election. I didn't like either candidate. Didn't want either one that was running, but the more I watched MSNBC, the more I found them not to tell the truth about a lot of issues. I found I was getting the truth with Fox so started watching them more and more. Now every once in awhile I will turn on MSNBC but find I can only take about 5 minutes then have to turn them off.
What you did say after the article you posted about Michael Savage being banned was - "We need to do the same thing. I can think of 2 right off the top of my head. How about Hannity and O'Really?"
I just read my response again and I never said that you said anyone should be banned from the country, but you did say they should be banned (or at least implied that).
I'll tell you, I'm not right or left. I have liberal viewpoints on certain issues and I have conservative viewpoints on other issues. It all depends on what the issue is about, and I certainly don't like being labeled in either party. I think there are many fine democrats and I think there are many fine republicans, and I also think there are some good independents, libertarians, etc.
It's funny you find yourself agreeing with O'Reilly, because I find myself disagreeing with him more and more. HA HA.
I do however like George Carlin's interpretation of politics and what's really going on. It may be comedy but he really hits the issues right on target.
Correct me if I'm wrong
I don't mind being wrong, and will admit when I am wrong....
Yes there is a difference between inciting hate and inciting violence. I have never heard MSNBC inciting violence and I also have never heard Fox incite violence. What Fox does is wake up people and let us know what our right are according to the constitution. They have even said over and over and over how wrong it was for Acorn to organize groups to terrorize the executives of AIG and put their families in fear. They are against violence of all sorts and they state that over and over. What MSNBC does is purposely go out of their way to misinform the public. They make fun of and chastise (sp?) anyone who doesn't agree with them and they go on the attack pretty much foaming at the mouth - Actually I saw Matthews drool one time he was so worked up.
I'll tell you about MSNBC. I know cos I watched them for the last 8 years. I couldn't stand the Bush regime, and I found myself drawn to MSNBC because I agreed with most of everything they said. I absolutely loved Keith Olberman (as my mom would say - very easy on the eyes too). I always found him to be witty and agreed with everything he said. Same with Chris Matthews. He did ask some tough questions and when he was rude to the guests I just figured it was okay because since I agreed with Chris and not the guest I though it was acceptable to be rude to them. This is what I found during the election. I didn't like either candidate. Didn't want either one that was running, but the more I watched MSNBC, the more I found them not to tell the truth about a lot of issues. I found I was getting the truth with Fox so started watching them more and more. Now every once in awhile I will turn on MSNBC but find I can only take about 5 minutes then have to turn them off.
What you did say after the article you posted about Michael Savage being banned was - "We need to do the same thing. I can think of 2 right off the top of my head. How about Hannity and O'Really?"
I just read my response again and I never said that you said anyone should be banned from the country, but you did say they should be banned (or at least implied that).
I'll tell you, I'm not right or left. I have liberal viewpoints on certain issues and I have conservative viewpoints on other issues. It all depends on what the issue is about, and I certainly don't like being labeled in either party. I think there are many fine democrats and I think there are many fine republicans, and I also think there are some good independents, libertarians, etc.
I am in favor of free speech for everyone - that's why I don't think anyone should be banned. What I am not in favor of is one party trying to shut down the other party and only have their party allowed to have radio and talk shows and give their opinion and that is what I'm finding the liberals are trying to do.
It's funny you find yourself agreeing with O'Reilly, because I find myself disagreeing with him more and more. HA HA.
I do however like George Carlin's interpretation of politics and what's really going on. It may be comedy but he really hits the issues right on target.
One question, does Able Danger prove that Bill Clinton is responsible for 9-11?
I don't think so. That is what the poster on this thread is suggesting.
Bill Clinton believed it, so did Hillary and so did John Kerry.
So did a great many in the congress else they would not have said so! How is it possible that you have such selective memory? I wish I could do that.
Bill Clinton gets part of the blame == refused to take out bin Laden...sm
when he had the chance.
Ah, correct me if I am wrong, but Obama...sm
was president of the Harvard Law Review, not the job for someone who needs notes and a teleprompter to make an intelligent speech.
Correct if I am wrong, but at the moment this is
you can't test ANYBODY until they hold the position, can you? Having said that, there are a few things to consider here. What do you think is an appropriate response to Russia's renewed aggression of late? Does it come as any surprise that, with American military forces stretched so thin, Russia would not try to take advantage? Georgia was not aimed at Obama, now was it?
This is where viable alliances come in handy. Europe is in the neighborhood and not across the ocean from Russia. Poland, Ukraine, Georgia and other countries interested in orienting themselves toward and allying themselves with the West will naturally be viewed by Russia as open targets, vulnerable to their flexed muscles.
W has done very little in the way of preserving the value of these time-tested alliances and has held the US in the isolation that is endemic to world superpower status. A diplomat he is not and the guy seems to have a real adversion to the basic concept of diplomacy.
In stark contrast we find Obama. As far as I am concerned, he cannot get to the helm fast enough, so if anything, I take comfort in the idea that we are 76 days and counting.
Huh? Let's stay on topic here. Bill Clinton and his intern have no relevance to this thread??nm
x
What about Roger Clinton, Bill's drug addict brother. Or Billy Bob Carter, sm
Jimmy's alcoholic brother. Man, we could do this all day. You know you posted that article to make the Bush's look bad. If you judge people by their families, that says a lot about you.
Crooks are crooks....like Bill Clinton...
like Frederick Raines...Like jamie Gorelick....there are crooks on both sides. We all know that. the Dems Enron was coming, it was just a matter of time. It's here.
|
